Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
, from the f.b.i., and from the administration discussing this very question. gathering all the information we possibly can, making sure we have the facts before we make a quick judgment about the role of libya, the role of terrorists and what we've seen to date. it's a response by the libyan government, even the firing of one of their top officials who made an inappropriate remark relative to this attack. so, in conclusion, madam president, i encourage my colleagues to pause and look at the larger picture when it comes to foreign aid. cutting off aid and disengaging from these countries is exactly what the perpetrators of these attacks and protesters are trying to achieve. i do not know if supporting the governments in this volatile region in this revolutionary movement will bring us the results we so urgently need. but if we are to review thoroughly the tools available to us -- and i'm convinced that we must -- we should not begin by throwing out the tools that we have. we need to sharpen those tools and better define their use but not discard them prematurely. madam presi
for fbi, not cia. okay? this is a job for the michigan state police, not the department of defense. okay. by the way, by and large most of the information we knew, okay, we knew about umar farouk abdulmutallab, the guy coming into detroit was all foreign derived. i think it was mistake to mirandize him in 50 minutes because our base of him is foreign intelligence. to me the right entry point was, enemy combatant, nation at war, deal with it that way. on the other hand if someone is discovered and prevented in an attack in the united states by the fbi the roots of that information are law enforcement derived. the going in position is we ought to treat this as a law enforcement problem and enter this into the american court system. i suppose if we stayed her long enough we could think of exceptions but in broad measure my sense is that is how we should deal with it. i hope made it worth your while coming here this afternoon. i hope you have left with more questions than you had when you came in. that was my intent. and thank you very much for the opportunity. and, go air force. [applause]
. domestic discretionary funding is the money that's used to keep the government operating each year. f.b.i. agents investigating case -gs, border patrol eights working our -- border patrol agents working our borders, employees mailing out social security checks and many other important programs and functions. it's already at its lowest level since a shared g.d.p. since the 1950's. it's hard to imagine any other federal investment not being jeopardized by such draconian cuts. and that is why president reagan -- president reagan's former economic advisor said about this ryan budget plan, "the ryan plan is a monstrosity." the reagan economic advisor. ronald reagan's economic advisor said "the ryan plan is a monstrosity. the rich would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would be shredded to pay for them. it is less of a wish list than a fairy tale, you utterly disconnd from the real world, backed up by make-believe numbers and unreasonable assumptions." if that's what ronald reagan's economic advisor thought about it, think what regular people might think about it. ryan's plan i
can create. a law enforcement fbi justice department's role to investigate those domestic terrorism, homeland security is more responsible for guarding our borders, northern, southern people coming by water and people coming by air as well as a lot of coordination with local law enforcement. so they have some law enforcement responsibilities, but if you are talking about giving and investigating a group you think may -- >> host: embrey to jump in because we need to go to the white house where they are going to do a moment of silence we want to listen and watch and come back to the discussion. [background noise] [background noise] [background noise] ♪ ♪ ♪ [background noise] >> a moment of silence this morning at the white house with the president and the first lady. you heard the bells rang at 8:46 eastern time when they were struck by their plan the 11 years ago on the september 11th 2001. nearly 3,000 americans died that day with the attacks of the world trade center, and the attacks of the pentagon here in washington. our cameras are up in new york where the world trade cent
partners including the fbi. the intelligence community is devoting more resources to identifying trafficking networks. it strengthened protection so that foreign-born workers know their rights. and most of all we are going after the traffickers. new anti-trafficking teams are dismantling their networks. last year we charged a record number of these predators with human trafficking. we are putting them where they belong, behind bars. [applause] but with more than 20 million victims of human trafficking around the world, think about that, more than 20 million, we have got a lot more to do. and that is why earlier this year i directed my to increase their efforts and today i can announce a series of additional steps that we are going to take. first we are going to do more to spot it and stop it. we will prepare a new assessment of human trafficking in the united states until we better understand the scope in the scale of the problem. we will strengthen training so investigators and law enforcement are even better equipped to take action and treat victims as victims, not as criminals
, high-ranking member of the f.b.i., director of national intelligence, general clapper and the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to tell us ostensibly what happened in the tragic death of christopher -- ambassador christopher stevens and three other brave americans. so we gathered down in the secret room, which everybody turns in their phones and blackberries, and we went in and listened to basically a description of america's military disposition in that part of the world, something which certainly does not warrant a super secret briefing. but more importantly than that, when the secretary and the others were asked exactly what happened, what happened here, what caused this tragedy? what was the sequence of events? in fact, it was senators, the ranking member of the intelligence committee, what happened? the answer was, well, that's still an ongoing investigation, and we can't tell you anything. we were supposed to be down there to hear what happened, to hear the administration's version of events of what happened. we were told nothing. we were told absolutely nothing. and
in washington, chief of staff to the fbi director robert meueller and he began the justice department lawyer to fill the position as the attorney general for national security he then served as the homeland security adviser to president george w. bush and is now in private practice in washington. ken, please. spec the panel starts off with a reference to playboy magazine, but i will see if i can catch my breath and go forward. thanks very much, pete. good to be here. i've been asked to talk about three cases. 1i guess you could call a national security case and then number to a more regular case. let me start with the national security case and that is called blabber versus amnesty international. it's actually standing case but it's a standing case relating to a challenge to what's called the fisa amendment act passed in 2008, and was an amendment through a very substantial amount of the foreign intelligence surveillance act passed in 1978, and to understand the standing issue of the stakes at play you have to understand the merits a little bit so let me get into them. >> for those watching
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7